To reach First World - First, update the constitution
-
Hey, meatbao, tell us why should we trade-off to have a strong government and so on, huh? I absolutely donÂ’t agree with you. The presence of strong government does not mean lack of democracy, prosperity, good public education and transport, security . . . . . Other countries have strong government and yet they are also given democracy. Complacency of the people (you are a good example) will encourage the gahmen to do more and more things to please themselves at our expense.Originally posted by Meat Pao:Hmm.....first we need to ask what is the purpose of this amendment?
To make better representation of the people in the parliament?
To make better checks and balances?
And, what is the ultimate purpose of these goals?
These all seem good on paper....but what is the ultimate purpose?
I just worry....it wont yield better results....
Singapore, I think, there is a trade-off....to make a strong government and a quick parliament, power is streamlined and concentrated.....some people feel they are not really living in democracy, and government has too much power.....however.....look at the bigger picture....with this structure, the outcome is prosperity, good public education, good public transport, security, etc so on....
We have to think what is actually politics is for.....
Not white cat or black cat, as long as a cat which can catch a mouse.
Meat Pao.
Ooops, I am hungry now, time to go for breakfast, may be I will eat “bao” – “Meat bao”!!? -
and now MM talked about brand - branding. Oops, is PAP known as a good and reliable brand to the people of Singapore, we have the answer!! Brand - a good brand will always do more and more to improve on their quality, carry out research, find out feedback from its customers and ask customers how can they improve to serve them better. So what about the brand PAP?!!! ha ha ha!Originally posted by robertteh:Yes, some years ago, MM Lee had said that if someone is to repeat something long enough eventually the message or propaganda will become the truth or be accepted as truth.
These sorts of manipulating or brainwashing of the people are being practised on the whole populations with the government thinking they can do anything but repeating their propaganda long enough.
But as can be seen in NKF and Ministers' pay issue, they have failed to brainwash many citizens who despite all the years of such propaganda, have rejected these propaganda totally with a complete waste of brainwashing efforts on their part. In fact they are now getting all the backlashes from such manipulations in that the 20-40% of citizens who know how to think out problems clearly are asking for change and refusing to listen to any more bullshits. -
you think the constitution can anyhow update like your postings ?Originally posted by robertteh:The Constitution usually sets out the basic rights of citizens and defines the role of government and its component branches.
The constitution of Singapore however has not established or clearly defined the respective rights of citizens and government allowing the government of the day to interpret its provisions to suit its own convenience. Such vagueness therefore provides a loophole for circumventing the rights of citizens and usurping the powers of the other component branches to suit its own private agenda e.g. tweaking of right of citizens to choose the representatives of their choice by imposing Greater Representation Constituency in the election process where citizens are unable to exercise their right to vote for the individuals of their choice as candidates are required to form themselves into blocks or slates of representatives with others before they could offer themselves to stand for election.
Group representations have deprived the right of citizen to vote freely a representative of their choice in a one-man-one-vote process provided in the constitution. The GRC supersedes the basic right of citizens to elect their representatives freely or offer themselves as candidate for election in the democratic election process.
In addition, there is a lack of clear definition of roles, authority and responsibilities of the respective branches of government allows the executive to use administrative power to supersede or suppress the right of other branches of government therefore depriving the citizens of their right of proper representation.
In view of the above-stated problems and shortcomings, it is urgent to revamp the current constitution to prevent any party in power from exploiting the loopholes created by the lack of clear definitions of roles, authority and responsibilities of component branches of the government.
By defining the roles, and authority of component branches of government clearly it will then create the necessary conditions for development of social, cultural and moral character and vibrancy of its people essential to development of nationhood in the long-term interest of the nation.
Only when there is such a safeguard against abuse of power over the other equally desirable aspects of nation building will it bring about the necessary conditions supportive of development of active citizenship.
While it has often been argued that government has the right to maintain law and order but it is equally important if not more so for the government to govern with accountability and transparency to prevent wrong doings which cause instability and breakdown of law and order.
The foremost objective of the government therefore is not to suppress the people using the excuse of maintaining law and order but it is to bring about social, cultural as well as moral conditions to facilitate mass participation of citizens in all endeavors of nation building.
A good government is one which will govern the country not for their own sake but with good corporate governance critical to such nation building.
It should govern the country holistically so that it will check the abuse of power, corruptions or wrong doings for creative economic development of the nation.
In the absence of such clear definition and safeguard, it will lead to a situation of legalistic wrangling of laws and regulations resulting in over-controls, over-regulations, autocracy, tyranny to suit their own narrow agenda of staying in power using the excuse of meritocracy or pragmatism at the expense of larger aspect of nation building and stifling of creativity and enterprises of society.
In the larger long-term interest of the state or the people, it is therefore critical and urgent to revise the current constitution so as to bring about conducive conditions towards governing the country for the greatest good for the greatest number?
To do so it is essential to maintain clear overview of the basic principles or objectives of good Government.
To run a country competitively and successfully, it is essential that there government should be elected by the people through free election without affecting or usurping the unalienable and unencumbered right of citizens to elect the best individual candidates of their free choice like GRC block representation which has jeopardized the free and democratic election process.
The government is elected to carry out the following essential functions:-
(1) administration,
(2) legislation - passing of laws and regulations for fair and just administration,
(2) justice,
(3) maintaining a free election process to enable citizens to elect their representatives or offer themselves as candidates to stand for election,
(4) implementing policies and decisions in objectively defined work processes to ensure good corporate governance i.e. governance with accountability and responsibility essential to development of citizens' social, cultural and economic vibrancy and competitiveness.
Specifically the constitution should clearly define (a) An effective executive, (b) Independent legislature, (c ) An independent judiciary.
Each of the above-stated three component branches of government has its own critical roles and responsibilities to play. By spelling out such roles and responsibilities as well as power or authority it will then lead of development of good corporate governance to serve the greatest benefits of the greatest number.
When such a constitution is established, it is then possible to bring about condition for citizens and government to work with cooperations, coordination and efficiency. All government policies and decisions will then gain the fullest support and participation of its citizens in nation building ?
The current vagueness due to lack of clear definition of rights and privileges of citizens and component branches of government has created a situation where the executive has accumulated too much discretionary power to pass laws and regulations to suit its own narrow agendas avoiding accountability and curtailing people's right to speak up, and participate in governing policies, appointments of government etc.
Read more about the current problems and shortcomings of the government in "20 major policy errors of government" and "review of performance of government under PM Lee Hsien Loong" as posted to the forums and the feedback unit.
With such vague and uncertain constitution will the government be able to bring about a cosmopolitan and inclusive society. Will it govern the nation for the greatest good of the greatest number?
Or will it continue to govern the country by taxing and recovering costs of government from the citizens to the fullest extent resulting in taxes being accumulated as surpluses for spending on extravagant projects like the 7 wonders or shin corp.
There is obviously more critical to balance between the need for law and order and and facilitating the conditions for full and uninhibited participation by the citizens in good corporate governance essential to competitive and vibrant development of nationhood.
-
If government does not anyhow set up GRC to hinder the best individuals to stand for election or increase their own ministers' salaries or appoint chief justice from among their own ex-classmates then there is really no good need to worry about the constitution as such a constitution will protect the people from abuse by the government.Originally posted by crazy monkey:you think the constitution can anyhow update like your postings ? -
edit your posting again ? can't make up your mind wat you want to say ?Originally posted by robertteh:If government does not anyhow set up GRC to hinder the best individuals to stand for election or increase their own ministers' salaries or appoint chief justice from among their own ex-classmates then there is really no good need to worry about the constitution as such a constitution will protect the people from abuse by the government. -
Any crime committed to edit postings ? What is edit button for?Originally posted by crazy monkey:edit your posting again ? can't make up your mind wat you want to say ? -
no crimeOriginally posted by robertteh:Any crime? -
(Case Study 1 of other constitutions - Constitution of United States, judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain..)
Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. -
There's a reason why regimes run by despots and tyrants are ever-eager to run the propaganda-mill, isn't there?Originally posted by robertteh:There is an extremely self-centred mind at work behind this kind of governance - winners take all.
In such a mind, the rule of the game is winning by whatever means.
So for the past 40 years, all the talks about meritocracy, promoting talents, bringing about a value-adding knowledge-based economy or creating good life for citizens etc are just the means but the supreme purpose is only to win the election or get by.
Now 66.6% of population has already been brainwashed into accepting all such empty talks without knowing the hypocrisy that all these are pure slogans to win elections and not solemn words to work for the people - to produce the greatest benefits for the greatest number.
All the problems affecting the society as a result of empty slogans will be explained away by the same method - repeating slogans without serious intent to carry out really good corporate governance.
Another common jargon for this kind of mindset: "The End justifies the Means"
-
Hello Walesa,
Self-centredness, a closed system of some kind is often the cause of failure of many regimes.
In such a self-centred system, there is very little commitments to implementation except constant talks about leadership, concepts like meritocracy or talents which are only basic but are too elusive.
Only when leaders have the extra the passion to set up the whole tasks and challenges in Objective Implementation Processes easily carried out by the whole team will it lead to result-oriented progress taking advantage of internal resources like practical talents and years of surpluses built on sacrifice of citizens. -
Rubbish!
I am not tabling the proposed amendments so don't get so upset. It is for our ministers and post-65 MPs to study. If they are creative and possessing good leadership qualities and can understand the current problems faced by the majority of citizens then they should table the motion to amend the constitution if amendments not only are good for the government, they are also good for their own future and future of their constituents and their own children.
I could puke at you
do you have the mandate to overhaul?
Who supports you!?Only yourself go **** off lah
If not done then once they lose power in the next election, the future political party in charge might do the same thing to them, to their own constituents and their own children. Be objective and don't be so narrow party based in thinking. They should think Singapore if they are good ministers and good MPs. -
republicans wrote:
roberttehkh wrote:
Quote:
Rubbish!
I could puke at you
do you have the mandate to overhaul?
Who supports you!?Only yourself go **** off lahRobertteh:I am not tabling the proposed amendments so don't get so upset. It is for our ministers and post-65 MPs to study. If they are creative and possessing good leadership qualities and can understand the current problems faced by the majority of citizens then they should table the motion to amend the constitution if amendments not only are good for the government, they are also good for their own future and future of their constituents and their own children.
If not done then once they lose power in the next election, the future political party in charge might do the same thing to them, to their own constituents and their own children. Be objective and don't be so narrow party based in thinking. They should think Singapore if they are good ministers and good MPs.Republican: Your proposal aint worth mine or the MPs read because no point reading smth that has no support from the ground.
Robertteh:
Your proposal full of bullshit.I say,no ammendments needed as of now.
Whether bullshits or not it is not for you or ministers or mps to judge as well.
It is not well supported by the ordinary people because ordinary people are now not really caring about politics or any future. They just live by the days and if they can do better they will go and enjoy their own lives.
Will our ministers and MPs be caring enough to understand that their past policies of taxing and recovering fullest costs while hoarding taxes as surpluses to serve their own narrow purposes and claim success is not something really good for themselves or their own future should another less enlightened government take over one day.
The ministers and MPs especially the post-65 MPs should seriously ponder over the suggestion as the constitution is too vulnerable to manipulations by any party in power and what goes around may come around one day.
It is far better they be more objective than only to serve their own narrow party agenda and become overly defensive about such a proposal which is probably the next best thing which can happen to PAP - self-renewal with new blood seeing the real problems and need for sea change from past narrow control which does not work too well in today's different world. -
Typical intimidation. Apparently some people cannot grow up.Originally posted by crazy monkey:edit your posting again ? can't make up your mind wat you want to say ? -
Granted, your abovementioned point is valid. That said, it's not rocket science to figure why tyrants and despots need to resort to ruling by an iron fist to sustain itself in power, is it?Originally posted by robertteh:Hello Walesa,
Self-centredness, a closed system of some kind is often the cause of failure of many regimes.
Quite simply, you need to abide by the rules to win a game. More importantly, however, you need to be in a game to win it. The latter underscores the importance of draconian methods being the cornerstone upon which the existence of despotic regimes thrive on. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
On a seperate note, this whole notion of doing anything "in the name of the government/nation" through "sacrifice of citizens" would hardly hold any water in a civilised society that functions on the rule of law.
Only when leaders have the extra the passion to set up the whole tasks and challenges in Objective Implementation Processes easily carried out by the whole team will it lead to result-oriented progress taking advantage of internal resources like practical talents and years of surpluses built on sacrifice of citizens.
It's no coincidence the notion that the masses should make sacrifices for the common good (or philosophy along that line) thrives so intently in despotic regimes celebrating the rule of man rather than those that subscribe to the rule of law. -
[quote:Republicans
PURE HYPE[/quote]
Yes there is too much PURE HYPE in repeating many policies which only benefit a small group of people.
This is because the constitution does not make the executive work with accountability due to lack of clear separation of powers among the executive, judiciary and legislative. Hence with legalistic wrangling and gerrymandering over time too much powers are being concentrated in one or a few with no one attending to many situations of inequity, unequal playing fields and many other problems.
The state controlled media is merely trying to present a good picture like in the NKF case of that everything is well but how long can it cover real problems and how long will justification, hypocrisy and denial last? -
as i read, suddenly this hit me..
poor robert teh.. he is a product of the PAP after all... advocation change forced from top down.. thinking that change will come because it comes from somewhere up there...
so what if the constitution is changed and the people are still like as they are now?
without sounding like some kind of advocate of zen, the change must come from the people... whatever the constitution is, ultimately becomes immaterial...
you would say i'm naive and all that but seriously... you ask anyone on the street what our constitution says and they would look at you blankly...
just saying it happens doesn't mean it'll happen.. just like saying some things in the constitution will not make singapore 'first world'
ultimately, whose 'first world' ?
the 'developed countries' out there? the US? the UK? Switzerland?
again, back to robertteh being the product of the PAP... because the world dictates so? using someone else's yardstick? because UK has the London Eye that we 'need' one? because some other place has an integrated resort that we 'need' one or two?
we need to find our own way.. instead of blinding running down the beaten path of others who have, in reality, gone the wrong way.. -
Changing constitution doesn't help if people don't want to change. Ultimately, human rules, not the constitution. To see a change in Singapore requires the cooperation of everybody. The constitution will serve as a guide. If constutition rules us, then we are nothing but blockheads.
-
You will be surprised how history repeats itself in a lot of ways, though in different manner.Originally posted by the Bear:as i read, suddenly this hit me..
poor robert teh.. he is a product of the PAP after all... advocation change forced from top down.. thinking that change will come because it comes from somewhere up there...
so what if the constitution is changed and the people are still like as they are now?
without sounding like some kind of advocate of zen, the change must come from the people... whatever the constitution is, ultimately becomes immaterial...
you would say i'm naive and all that but seriously... you ask anyone on the street what our constitution says and they would look at you blankly...
just saying it happens doesn't mean it'll happen.. just like saying some things in the constitution will not make singapore 'first world'
ultimately, whose 'first world' ?
the 'developed countries' out there? the US? the UK? Switzerland?
again, back to robertteh being the product of the PAP... because the world dictates so? using someone else's yardstick? because UK has the London Eye that we 'need' one? because some other place has an integrated resort that we 'need' one or two?
we need to find our own way.. instead of blinding running down the beaten path of others who have, in reality, gone the wrong way..
It is hubris to assume that we can find our own "unique" way.
And by the way, your flippant nature towards the ULTIMATE LAW of the land itself speaks a lot. The Constitution is the ULITMATE LAW of the land in ANY country. -
Then by the same reasoning, we can also say that there is no need for a constitution too in the first place as irrespective of the constitution, it is the people finally that count in determining success or failure of governing.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Changing constitution doesn't help if people don't want to change. Ultimately, human rules, not the constitution. To see a change in Singapore requires the cooperation of everybody. The constitution will serve as a guide. If constutition rules us, then we are nothing but blockheads.
If that is the case then citizens should simply let the executive do as they like based on trust. Is this the kind of constitution or the government we want going forward to meet the greater challenges in a more competitive world?
Based on what have happened in NKF and Shin Corp can citizens go on trusting the executive it will act fairly and equitably without covering up problems in the future?
One thing is for sure though a vague constitution benefit the executive, which may use whatever loopholes available so that it could use such loopholes legalistically to tell the judiciary what to do like in appointments of judges or interpreting certain gerrymandering of election process like GRC as constitutional and legal.
The problems arising from vagueness or lack of specific definitions of roles and responsibilities among component branches of government are major likely to give rise to abuse affecting the whole efficiency, equitability, objectivity in running of a country.
If it is clearly spelt out the executive will have to call for referendum or pass new provisions in parliament without conflict with existing provisions especially relating to use of public funds for provisions of lift upgrading only to certain constituencies which voted more strongly for the ruling party or suing of political oppositions for comments made in the course of election. -
I didn't write that there's no need for constitution. The constitution should be there to guide, how the governing should be done, what citizens could do to improve the country's governance.Originally posted by robertteh:Then by the same reasoning, we can also say that there is no need for a constitution too in the first place as irrespective of the constitution, it is the people finally that count in determining success or failure of governing.
If that is the case then citizens should simply let the executive do as they like based on trust. Is this the kind of constitution or the government we want going forward to meet the greater challenges in a more competitive world?
Based on what have happened in NKF and Shin Corp can citizens go on trusting the executive it will act fairly and equitably without covering up problems in the future?
One thing is for sure though a vague constitution benefit the executive, which may use whatever loopholes available so that it could use such loopholes legalistically to tell the judiciary what to do like in appointments of judges or interpreting certain gerrymandering of election process like GRC as constitutional and legal.
The problems arising from vagueness or lack of specific definitions of roles and responsibilities among component branches of government are major likely to give rise to abuse affecting the whole efficiency, equitability, objectivity in running of a country.
If it is clearly spelt out the executive will have to call for referendum or pass new provisions in parliament without conflict with existing provisions especially relating to use of public funds for provisions of lift upgrading only to certain constituencies which voted more strongly for the ruling party or suing of political oppositions for comments made in the course of election.
Updating the constitution will not make us a first-world country. To make us one, citizens should first change themselves before changing the constitution. They are ultimately the ones living here. -
It is your reasoning that constitution does not help if people don't want to change.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Changing constitution doesn't help if people don't want to change. Ultimately, human rules, not the constitution. To see a change in Singapore requires the cooperation of everybody. The constitution will serve as a guide. If constutition rules us, then we are nothing but blockheads.
So it is clear from the above-stated statement of yours that changing the constitution does not help if people don't want to change.
This is like a chicken and egg situation isn't it? Who should change first - the executive who gerrymandered the existing constitution due to its vagueness or generality of provisions or the people's behavior and conduct.
We may have to argue till the cow comes home if we adopt such an approach in any arguments.
One thing is for sure though - the constitution has been rather vague about rights or citizens or definitions of respective roles and responsibilities of the three component branches of government so much so that the executive is impinging a lot into the judiciary and legislative resulting in lopsided policies being pursued to suit the narrow agendas of the ruling party.
For the long term, this may be highly undesirable as power corrupts and absolute powers corrupt absolutely.
For the above-stated facts and logics, it is essential to recognize the shortcomings and weaknesses of the current constitution and do something to set the tone and direction for better nation building. The citizens could then be influenced and mature accordingly being better guided by a more entrepreneur pro-people and pro-progress constitution.
Left to the natural development of people character and human nature it is doubtful the situation will change and any future government will simply continue to exploit whatever loopholes they could find and citizens will only suffer more. -
The point is, a constitution is effectively useless in a regime run by despots and tyrants and cannot be relied upon to effect change for the only interests it serves is those of the tyrants who are amending the rules of the game to accomodate them.Originally posted by robertteh:Then by the same reasoning, we can also say that there is no need for a constitution too in the first place as irrespective of the constitution, it is the people finally that count in determining success or failure of governing.
Communism did not collapse in the Soviet Union through a change in the Constitution - a change in the Constitution only came about after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Like I said previously, to expect this regime to alter its constitution in such a manner as to safeguard the interests of the masses is no more realistic than banking your hope on a regime change arising in North Korea as a consequence of Kim Jung Il being ousted from power by democratic means... -
It is true the current regime is unlikely to amend the constitution. Citizens though should not be discouraged and should work hard if they have the wellbeing of fellow citizens and country at heart to bring about such safeguard in the long-term interest of all.Originally posted by walesa:The point is, a constitution is effectively useless in a regime run by despots and tyrants and cannot be relied upon to effect change for the only interests it serves is those tyrants amending it at their whim and fancy.
Communism did not collapse in the Soviet Union through a change in the Constitution - a change in the Constitution only came about after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Like I said previously, to expect this regime to alter its constitution in such a manner as to safeguard the interests of the masses is no more realistic than banking your hope on a regime change arising in North Korea as a consequence of Kim Jung Il being ousted from power by democratic means... -
That just underscores the whole point - amending the constitution would not effect regime change. Amending the Constitution would only be of significance after the regime is toppled(by whatever means).Originally posted by robertteh:It is true the current regime is unlikely to amend the constitution. Citizens though should not be discouraged and should work hard if they have the wellbeing of fellow citizens and country at heart to bring about such safeguard in the long-term interest of all.
Afterall, history has proved no regime run by despots and tyrants has ever succeeded in effecting a change of the regime from within. At the end of the day, only those from within are empowered to change the Constitution.